Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Other than the PGF, the most concrete thing I can think of is the geographical and seasonal patterns that can be seen across reports. They rule out misidentification as being a significant source for reports and they suggest that Sasquatch are biologically real entities.

Reports equal....

Which leads your bias brain to do this...again

Please bring something new to the conversation, maybe spend more time "researching" on BFF they might get you up to speed.

Indeed. That's Meldrum's Relict Hominoid Inquiry. Meldrum and his buddies made up their own journal in which to disseminate their ill-founded ideas. The so-called journal is not in any meaningful way peer-refereed, nor is it indexed via Web of Science.

To suggest that Kathy Strain's "hairy man" interpretation of the referenced pictographs is legitimized by its appearance in this virtual rag of a journal demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of scientific publication.

OOH - oh okay. The PGF was a hoax perpetuated by Roger Patterson to 1) make him some dough and 2) advance the belief in bigfoot among the simple-minded.

Other than the PGF, the most concrete thing I can think of is the geographical and seasonal patterns that can be seen across reports. They rule out misidentification as being a significant source for reports and they suggest that Sasquatch are biologically real entities.

I'm sorry? Crap you made up out of whole cloth should be regarded as evidence? Really?

__________________Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

From what I can tell, I'll bet it would be a blast to have heard him tell the story.

Especially if Gimlin was within earshot.

P: We were there for a week.
G: No we weren't.
P: We tracked her for 3.5 miles after we filmed her.
G: No we didn't.
P: You used your Indian skills to follow her path and you had the long Indian hair.
G: No and no. Roger, please stop lying.
Cervelo: Gimlin, you shut up and let Roger tell the story. This is serious business.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

The only thing that will convince anyone here is proof that's accepted by mainstream or perhaps a sighting of their own.

You've never seen a Bigfoot, OS. You're not even out looking for one, oddly. You'd rather spend your time on a sceptical forum trying to get people to feel sorry for your plight, which ironically, is being a believer who's never had an encounter, complaining to sceptics about how they won't take you seriously.

It would be easy to think that the costume was originally intended to be a male and then the breasts were added as an afterthought. If you removed the breasts you'd instantly have a male. There is nothing "female" about the face or physique.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

It's totally possible, but what kind of advantage would it serve to make a male with female breasts?

A very freaky advantage. Bigfoot is into that stuff. It makes sense, OS. Think about it.

__________________"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian)

But seriously, Figboot is a hermaphrodite. It screws itself and becomes pregnant. The pocket penis stays tucked away until needed. That's why you don't need a breeding population, all you need is a couple here and there.

__________________If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.